LOGO: Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines. A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman. Winner 2013 Webby Awards for Best Political Website
May 23, 2013

 Choose a size
Text Size

Trending:     chris hedges     economy     elizabeth warren     politics     robert scheer
Most Read

A Call to Action

Bizarre, Apparently Jihadist Slaying in London (Video)

Oklahoma Needs Help, Not Ideology

Hell on Earth for Greeks

Another Memorial Day in This Endless War

Most Comments
Most Emailed

Reports
 * NEW! * Fish Migration Reveals Ocean Warming

Ear to the Ground

A/V Booth

Arts & Culture
 * NEW! * A Call to Action
Act of Congress
Daily Rituals

Digs

Truthdig Bazaar
Ulysses

Ulysses

By James Joyce

more items

 
Reports

Health Care’s New Nullifiers

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Mar 25, 2010

By E.J. Dionne, Jr.

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli seems determined to use an attack on health care reform to bring us back to the 1830s.

Cuccinelli, to cheers from the tea party crowd, went to court this week to overturn the new law, which he says conflicts with a Virginia statute “protecting its citizens from a government-imposed mandate to buy health insurance.”

“Normally, such conflicts are decided in favor of the federal government,” he said, “but because we believe the federal law is unconstitutional, Virginia’s law should prevail.”

The Republican attorney general’s move reveals how far into the past America’s New Nullifiers want to push the nation. They don’t just want to abandon a decades-long understanding of the Constitution’s interstate commerce clause that has allowed the federal government to regulate a modern, national economy. They also want to resurrect states’ rights doctrines discredited by President Andrew Jackson during the nullification crisis of the 1830s and buried by the Civil War.

There are two issues here. One is whether the federal government can require individuals to buy health insurance. The other is the states’ rights question. In a suit separate from Cuccinelli’s, 13 state attorneys general—12 Republicans and a conservative Democrat from Louisiana—also challenged the mandate. But their main argument is that the federal government cannot force states to pay for an expanded Medicaid program and take other steps the law requires.

Advertisement

It would take a rashly activist court to find the individual mandate unconstitutional because it is structured as a tax. No one will go to jail for not buying insurance. Starting in 2014, people who refuse will have to pay a penalty to the federal government, administered by the IRS. There are subsidies for those who cannot afford coverage on their own, as well as hardship exemptions.

The idea is simple: Most people without insurance currently receive at least some medical help, and the mandate is designed to get everyone paying into the system. One of the best defenses of a health insurance mandate came in a Wall Street Journal Op-Ed piece published in April 2006.

“By law, emergency care cannot be withheld,” this commentator wrote. “Why pay for something you can get free? Of course, while it may be free for them, everyone else ends up paying the bill, either in higher insurance premiums or taxes.”

He concluded: “Some of my libertarian friends balk at what looks like an individual mandate. But remember, someone has to pay for the health care that must, by law, be provided: Either the individual pays or the taxpayers pay. A free ride on government is not libertarian.”

That would be Mitt Romney. The former Massachusetts governor is now trying to insist that the health plan with a mandate that he championed in his state—with the support of a legislator named Scott Brown—is oh-so-different from the bill President Barack Obama signed this week. But Romney can’t take back his own words.

Still, at least the quarrel over the mandate is about something relatively new. The old states’ rights argument, if successful, could upend years of federal legislation. Will we have a system in which states can pick and choose among federal laws? We want our elderly to get Medicare, and want more highway money, but forget this health care expansion.

That sounds like the logic of the nullifiers of the 1830s, fighting to resist a federal tariff they thought was too high. Gov. Robert Y. Hayne of South Carolina, their leader, sounded rather like today’s tea partyers. His state, he declared in 1832, was “inflexibly determined never to surrender her reserved rights, nor to suffer the constitutional compact to be converted into an instrument for the oppression of her citizens.”

Andrew Jackson’s response to the nullifiers is classic. He denounced “the strange position that any one State may not only declare an act of Congress void, but prohibit its execution.” He also wondered how a state could “retain its place in the Union, and yet be bound by no other of its laws than those it may choose to consider as constitutional.”

OK, at least today the attorneys general are going to court before taking further action. But in the case of Cuccinelli, the very law he is relying on to justify his suit was passed by Virginia’s Legislature in direct defiance of a federal bill the state lawmakers knew might be coming. Call it Nullification Light. It’s no way to run a serious country, and it’s a reckless approach to politics.

E.J. Dionne’s e-mail address is ejdionne(at)washpost.com.

© 2010, Washington Post Writers Group


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By Chuck, April 27, 2011 at 12:13 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I’m out of lgaeue here. Too much brain power on display!

Report this
drbhelthi's avatar

By drbhelthi, March 27, 2010 at 2:08 am Link to this comment

The CIA has probably “inspired” more degrees from
Harvard than any other single university in the US.

North Carolina universities have not escaped the CIA
spider-web, however, with an increasing trend.
Perhaps due to the Blackwater/Ex strongholds in NC,
with property in the formerly-beautiful, western area
increasingly sucked-up by overpaid, former assassin-
types. 

Although, degree “inspiration” by the CIA is spread
over many US universities, and not limited to
university degrees. A falsified “birth certificate”
from Hawaii or almost anywhere is comparatively small
potatoes.  The CIA and US Treasury attained marvelous
expertise with passport and family history
falsifications in the US, Germany and other locations
via “Operation Paper Clip,” 1945-1948. 
Could it be that control has spread to a
certain US Treasury printing press? 
Are not one-hundred-dollar bills attractive?

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, March 26, 2010 at 3:58 pm Link to this comment

LocalHero, March 26 at 12:11 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

To Inherit the Wind,

“..including grad school at UNC, a premier center of the study of Southern History.”

No wonder you don’t know anything about history.
**************************************************

Fvck you. Not everything good is “Hahvahd”

Report this

By Charley Barcelo, March 26, 2010 at 2:17 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

One step forward and 15 yards back.  Congrats Mr Cuccinelli.  You are bring us bask to 1830 alittle more and we will be back in England and It will be 1600.  All the sacrifices and deaths of courageous patriots will be for naught because you demand the right to discriminate no matter who it hurts.  Oh Tom Jefferson and George Washington must be turning over intheir graves wishing they could instill some common sense into you and your fascist party.

Report this

By LocalHero, March 26, 2010 at 9:11 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

To Inherit the Wind,

“..including grad school at UNC, a premier center of the study of Southern History.”

No wonder you don’t know anything about history.

Report this
drbhelthi's avatar

By drbhelthi, March 26, 2010 at 7:57 am Link to this comment

Focussing a bit on the subject at hand, I wonder how
many “Addenda” were tacked onto or “worked into” this
alleged “Health Care” bill, which have nothing to do
with “health care” ?

We will know, after they have begun to “hit the fan,”
and congress persons start asking, “where the ???? did
this come from?”

A genuine “health care” bill?  Not even funny.

Only a question of which butcher gets the biggest
slice.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, March 26, 2010 at 4:14 am Link to this comment

The South - not being allowed to withdraw from a union they voluntarily joined - was the very height of tyranny. The spirit of Independence died, while the specter of Globalization was born.
************************************

I’ve heard this line for over 30 years.  It’s bullshit. They made that argument so they could keep their slaves.  Lincoln was a pragmatist whose goal was to keep the Union together. There is NOTHING in the Constitution that allows any member to withdraw.  Nothing.

Let’s continue with the history lesson:
Sometime in the 1830’s Britain outlawed slavery—a full 30 years ahead of the United States, and without a civil war to do it.  Yet Britain was an avid supporter of the South’s efforts to separate.

Now why do you think that was?
1) It would allow direct and cheaper trade with the agrarian society that depended for much of its income on exports.
2) It would create two FAR weaker states, both of which could more easily be dominated and possibly re-conquered.
3) Don’t forget that the War of 1812 ended in 1815, barely 45 years before the Civil War began.
4) Britain’s “Historic Relationship” and “Hands across the Sea” is a relatively recent development, despite our common language and culture.  As late as 1915, before OUR entry into WWI, Britain’s relations with the US were troubled.  It was only Wilson’s Anglophilia and the trumped-up Lusitania incident and the Germans decision to return to unrestricted sub warfare in 1916 that changed that.

The Union had very few friends during the Civil War as most other nations were like jackals waiting to pull apart the carcass.  The South’s treason, had it been successful, would have destroyed both the CSA and the USA.  That’s an obvious extrapolation.

Southern soldiers, most of whom were NOT slave-owners, quickly realized that they were dying to protect the wealth of a few and they used to say “Rich Man’s War, Poor Man’s Fight!”  Not too different than our war in Iraq today, was it?

Report this

By Thomas O. Anderson, March 25, 2010 at 6:10 pm Link to this comment

To ITW:

Slavery was an abomination, and I offer no defense for it. But you know as well as I that Lincoln confessed if permitting slavery would have kept the Union together - he would have allowed it. It was all about grabbing and maintaining control:

“If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.” - A. Lincoln 1862

The South - not being allowed to withdraw from a union they voluntarily joined - was the very height of tyranny. The spirit of Independence died, while the specter of Globalization was born.

Just imagine a future One World Government (a Global Union) where, for whatever reason, the United States decides it is no longer any good, and wants to opt out. Would the other countries (following in Lincoln’s abhorrent footsteps) have the right to murder and destroy the US until we surrendered?

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, March 25, 2010 at 5:04 pm Link to this comment

You know what, TOA? I’ve studied American History all my life, including grad school at UNC, a premier center of the study of Southern History.  I’ve never heard ONE valid argument why the South should have been allowed to continue with slavery.  That their “States’ Rights” should super-cede human rights is an immoral travesty.

The only plus I can think of for secession is that MOST Southern states get to suck more money out of the Federal government than they put in and that money comes out of us Northern states.

BTW, the South started the Civil War by
a) Seceding and thus committing treason
b) Firing on Fort Sumter.

They ended it by founding the Ku Klux Klan, an all-American terrorist institution.

I have no sympathy.

Report this

By gerard, March 25, 2010 at 10:37 am Link to this comment

The overall point being:  UNITED WE STAND. DIVIDED WE FALL.  And that goes for the entire world now, at this late date, what with nukes and pollution, neither of which have any boundaries, walls, fences, lines drawn in the sand, or cultural sanctities. It’s all for one and one for all, or a very painful death for our beautiful Mother Earth.

Report this

By balkas, March 25, 2010 at 9:29 am Link to this comment

My religion, xy7 with congregation of one, also, damn it, misleads me more times than i am willing to tell my wife with her religion xy8.

It took me 50 yrs of deepthink to realize religion xy7 was fallible. So i decided also to consult the other side of all religions, the devil’s views.

We know s/hes around because ?all religions + bible, quran, talmud, vedas tell us so!

I now sleep lot better having obtained another vision. We, gods and me, said the satan, made nature infinitely valued; in which people at their worst cld shoot thousands nuclearly-armed missiles at one another or at their best come up with some or other ‘reforms’.

We, gods and i, call that the Devil’s Theory. It means that we will always produce enough people who will deny u many rights and wld do all kinds of crimes because that is pleasing to our eyes.

But there is still hope: a new god is arising, a god that wld love all of the people all of the time; all receiving medical treatments, schooling; living in an idyllic society and having a timocratic democracy.

In which voting wldn’t matter because we wld be ruled by timocrats. Actually, we wldn’t be ruled; we wld just have people managing our affairs; instead of THEM having their managers managing THEIR affairs.

So, praise be to OUR GOD, god 1!

Report this
mrfreeze's avatar

By mrfreeze, March 25, 2010 at 8:19 am Link to this comment

Quoting Mitt Romney’s words was incredibly exhilarating to me as I spend a lot of time around Mormons who, despite their “nice” exterior, have always been separatists and who are some of the most anti-government people in the country. It will be very nice to quote Mitt-the-hypocrite’s words to them.

Report this

By falken751, March 25, 2010 at 8:13 am Link to this comment

What if John NcCain and Sarah Palin had won the election? Can you imagine what a hell hole this country would be? They are two wingnuts that are the picture of the republican party. They seem to have the same amount of intelligence as the moron tea party a-holes.

Report this

By balkas, March 25, 2010 at 7:53 am Link to this comment

I think i have said this before: even tho a constitution is an infallible set of laws, it, nevertheless, cld not prevent civil war nor annul the belief in hearts of many americans that they had the right to own people as one owns an animal.tnx

Report this

By Thomas O. Anderson, March 25, 2010 at 7:39 am Link to this comment

The states taking a stand against forced for-profit insurance are, indeed, taking us back to the 1830’s and making us rethink the Civil War.

Although from the North myself (and indoctrinated for 12 years of my young developing life in compulsory government training centers) I now realize what a travesty the Civil War really was. It was the war which undid “Independence.”

I used to think “United We Stand” was somehow an honorable motto. But now realize it’s an insidiously veiled threat: “Leave and we’ll kill you.”

It’s worth noting that Abe Lincoln (like Saddam Hussein) was responsible for murdering thousands of his own people.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, March 25, 2010 at 3:28 am Link to this comment

Hey! Virginia! You LOST the Civil War!  “Nullification” died at the Appomattox Court House in 1865 when treason was finally put down.

Report this
Newsletter

sign up to get updates


 
 
 
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
© 2013 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.